![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> JG (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 1460 (19 December 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/1460.html Cite as: [2007] EWCA Civ 1460 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
[AIT No: IM017252006]
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
JG (JAMAICA) |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT |
Respondent |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Keene:
"… expected to seek severely inadequate eye care services in Jamaica when she is as of right entitled to free eye services in the UK."
He also found at paragraph 20 that:
"… it would be unreasonable to expect the appellant to leave her daughter for any length of time in view of the daughter's emotional needs and her medical condition."
"Given that only a relatively short period of separation would be involved in that process (either between the appellant and her daughter, or the daughter and monitoring for her eye condition at Great Ormond St Hospital), the immigration judge failed to explain with proper or any detailed reference to the evidence before him why even that would be disproportionate to the legitimate purpose of immigration control served by requiring the appellant to regularise her situation in the proper way."
It is clear from that passage that this was a reasons deficiency, which the AIT was identifying as the error of law in the first immigration judge's decision.
"Applying the balancing exercise and applying the authorities strictly, I find that the removal of the Appellant to Jamaica where she can make an application through the proper channels, leaving her daughter to be cared for by her father and where medical care can continue, is proportionate to the legitimate aim of maintaining effective immigration control. The interference to family life resulting from her being required to return to Jamaica and make an application for settlement cannot be said to prejudice the family life of the Appellant in a manner sufficiently serious to amount to a breach of the fundamental right protected by Article 8."
She dismissed the applicant's appeal.
Order: Application refused